VIJAY DEO JHA
Ranchi, Sept 15: Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren’s masterstroke of declaring the domicile policy based on 1932 land records is basically a nightmare for the Congress.
There are a number of Congress MLAs and hopefuls whose constituencies and core constituents are not dominated by 1932 land records holders. This includes health minister Banna Gupta who is said to be privately upset over the probable implication of the new domicile rule.
“I believe the decision has affected a large number of people who settled after 1932 and got mixed with local society and culture. They vote for the Congress as well. They are more than 30 percent in Jharkhand. It is funny to believe that since we are with the JMM, we are also going to be benefitted. We have stopped thinking individually,” a senior party leader warned.
Fearing that criticizing the new policy will annoy tribals and moolvasis, most of the party leaders avoided commenting on whether or not they feared an electoral backlash and erosion of the vote bank as a large number of the population settled here after 1932 will now stand as non-Jharkhandis. As per the policy, a person will be treated as a native of Jharkhand if his name or that of his ancestor is mentioned in the 1932 land survey records.
But the fault line surfaced in the Congress hours after the Hemant Soren cabinet gave a nod to this policy. Party’s two prominent tribal faces namely former Chief Minister Madhu Koda and his wife and MP Geeta Koda opposed the decision.
“Kolhan jalega and aise me Sarkar jimmedar hogi,” Congress MP Geeta Koda warned, who is also the working president of Jharkhand Congress.
“If 1932 land records have been made as the baseline of the domicile policy then please explain to us where people of Kolhan division should go? It is due to the reason that the last survey settlement at Kolhan was held in 1964. I oppose this decision and request the Chief Minister to reconsider the policy. All of a sudden, natives of Kolhan have been reduced to the status of migrants and refugees in their village,” Gita Koda further said.
Her statement was a direct rebuttal to her state president Rajesh Thakur who praised the decision. “This is a historical day for Jharkhand and the decision has long been awaited. The Congress championed the demand for a 1932-based domicile policy and 27 percent reservation for OBC. Both the demands were fulfilled by the Hemant Soren-led JMM-Congress-RJD government,” said Rajesh Thakur.
But party’s Jharia MLA Purnima Niraj Singh cautioned that a decision like this may only keep certain sections of the state happy. She said that the government should always take a consensus decision because the government can’t discriminate. And she further pointed out that 20 years back the Jharkhand High court had rejected the domicile policy based on 1932 as the cut-of-date.
Purnima Niraj Singh is concerned about her own electoral politics besides her party since the constituency she represents has the dominance of people who settled here half decades back and even more from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.
An MLA of the Congress admitted that the 1932 domicile policy was basically a coalition compulsion for the Congress. “What I came to know is that Chief Minister Hemant Soren persuaded for domicile policy and he, in turn, agreed to pass 27 percent reservation for OBCs which was the agenda of the Congress. But this new policy framework is going to affect the existing templates. A large population will be technically declared non-Jharkhandis. The party is going to suffer a huge loss in urban pockets,” said the MLA.
“What basis will be adopted in districts where land surveys were conducted after 1932? If you disown and declare a large population as non-Jharkhandis, then the affected people will demand an explanation from the Congress when we go to seek their vote. A large population votes for us and we can’t escape by saying that they vote for BJP,” said the MLA.
The Congress leaders are just calculating and discussing whether the Congress can compensate for that loss by attracting the OBC voters whose reservation percentage now exceeds 27 percent from 14 percent.
But MLA from Bermo Jaimangal Singh said that the decision will boost the electoral and political prospects of the Congress. “This decision is meant for the larger interest of the native population. People of my constituency are very happy that Jharkhand’s identity finally got a tag that is 1932. If Bihar and Bengal can have a domicile policy based on 1932 then why not Jharkhand? Some people raise imaginary fears. After this decision, the JMM-Congress alliance will get overwhelming support from tribals, moolvasis, minorities, and OBC,” he said
Even former cabinet minister Subodhkant Sahay echoed the same thing. He said that the Congress had promised OBC reservation and a 1932-based domicile policy. He tried to assuage the fear that non-Jharkhandis will be driven out or they will be given no share in state jobs.
“Let the policy come out in detail it will answer many misgivings. The government has only defined who else is Jharkhandis. I believe the government has framed the policy in such a way and even future policies like local employment will be designed in such a way that all sections of the society will be included in a comprehensive manner,” he said.